Petitioners Opening Brief - Laserfiche WebLink

ER-23 1 in the development share common architectural elements does not undermine the 2 conclusion that Building 2 is designed with architectural features sufficient to 3 satisfy the adjustment criteria. 4 The fourth assignment of error is denied. 5 FIFTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 EC 9.6815(2)(f) provides: "In cases where a required street connection would result in the extension of an existing street that is not improved to city standards and the street has an inadequate driving surface, the developer shall construct a temporary barrier at the entrance to the unimproved street section with provision for bicycle, pedestrian, and emergency vehicle access. The barrier shall be removed by the city at the time the existing street is improved to city standards or to an acceptable standard adopted by the public works director. In making a determination of an inadequate driving surface, the public works director shall consider the street rating according to Eugene's Paving Management System and the anticipated traffic volume." (Emphasis added.) ' ' In its response brief, Lombard argues that the "inadequate driving surface" standard in EC 9.6815(2)(f) is not "clear and objective" and thus cannot be applied to its application to develop housing in light of the limitation in ORS 197.307(4). See n 3. Lombard's Response Brief 24-25. However, Lombard does not assign error to the city's determination that EC 9.6815(2)(f) constitutes applicable criteria in its cross-petition for review. Even if Lombard had cross- assigned error, we would not reach it, for the same reasons explained under the second assignment of error, because we deny the fifth assignment of error. Thus, we express no opinion about Lombard's argument that EC 9.6815(2)(f) cannot be applied. Page 23 LUBA Record Page 00028